A greater than 100% viewfinder view?

Reading MR's Leica M8 review got me thinking about this. I imagine that in the smaller DSLRs the viewfinder is physically smaller generally, but in the 1DMkII it must in some sense be masked, right? At least, the room for the larger, full frame view is obviously there — it's utilized as such in the full frame 1DsMkII.

Does this mean — in theory at least — that in the cropped 1DMkII we could have the benefit of a larger view than what the sensor is recording? I.e., instead of a 98% or 100% view, actually have something like, what would it be, 125%? That might have all sorts of advantages. It would be like the old "sport finders." It would also be like the Leica's rangefinder — you'd see the frame, and also what's outside the frame, and could compose accordingly.

Would that work? I think I would love it for shooting sports.

Where it just might have real application would be in the much-rumored next-generation "combined" 1-series. In fast crop sports mode, we could have the option of either a masked viewfinder, or to retain the full finder view but with rangefinder-style frame markings superimposed.

Does the Nikon with the alternate-crop mode work this way by any chance?

Thoughts?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Yes!

Yea, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Nil,

You don't know how incendiary your remarks can be. I was thinking of moving your posts to hide it but now he's seen it! It's probably too late, The damage is done!

I can only now imagine Will's wife nagging him about all the little pieces messing up her kitchen as another fine camera gets eye surgery by the fearless Will Thompson, camera M.D.!


Will,

" Yes!Yea, Yes, Yes, and Yes." sounds like just the dangerous enthusiasm that can do a lot of damage to a 1DII!

At least take some pictures to document how you let the light into you camera!

Asher

BTW, if you do succeed, I'll send you mine too! Why not, it's a year old, nearly 80 years old in man-years? It's had a good life!

vignetting issues

Nill Toulme said:

Reading MR's Leica M8 review got me thinking about this. I imagine that in the smaller DSLRs the viewfinder is physically smaller generally, but in the 1DMkII it must in some sense be masked, right? At least, the room for the larger, full frame view is obviously there — it's utilized as such in the full frame 1DsMkII.

Click to expand...

The mirror on a 1DII is smaller than on a 1DsII, isn't it, so you would get severe vignetting.
Also, the bigger field of view might need a lower viewfinder magnification: a 1DsII has 0.7x and
a 1DII 0.72x, it seems.

I've always understood that one of the reasons a 1D gets its higher fps is that it has a much lighter
mirror to flip around.

Maybe not — see discussion in this FM thread.

In any event, the mirror in a new "combination" camera will by definition be big enough; it would simply be a matter of giving the user the option in crop mode of either masking out the frame or using a frame line box.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

>>The mirror on a 1DII is smaller than on a 1DsII, isn't it,<<

No, the size of the mirror on both cameras is exactly the same.

>>I've always understood that one of the reasons a 1D gets its higher fps is that it has a much lighter mirror to flip around.<<

That's incorrect. Both models (1D Mark II/N and 1Ds Mark II) are physically capable of running at 8.5 fps. The 1Ds Mark II is intentionally limited to 4 fps because of the higher volume of data that's captured on a per image basis.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall
Director/Media & Customer Relationship
Camera Marketing Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Chuck I'm tickled that you've weighed in on this. I hope you will pass this thought on to the product designers of the new combined 1-series.

Well, let me rephrase that. I know the new camera doesn't exist, and I know the designers don't exist either. But if they did exist, it would have been my hope that you would pass this idea on. ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Nill,

You've been reading Terry Pratchett again haven't you ?

Actually Terry's been reading me. Or would have been if he existed. And if I existed.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Chuck Westfall(Canon USA) said:

>>The mirror on a 1DII is smaller than on a 1DsII, isn't it,<<

No, the size of the mirror on both cameras is exactly the same.

>>I've always understood that one of the reasons a 1D gets its higher fps is that it has a much lighter mirror to flip around.<<

That's incorrect. Both models (1D Mark II/N and 1Ds Mark II) are physically capable of running at 8.5 fps. The 1Ds Mark II is intentionally limited to 4 fps because of the higher volume of data that's captured on a per image basis.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall
Director/Media & Customer Relationship
Camera Marketing Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Click to expand...

Chuck,

I knew the mirror were the same size but kept it from Will Thompson because I know he takes cameras apart at the slightest whim.

I'm so sorry that his 1DII is going to be taken apart to use the full size of the light path and get a bright large viewfinder field like the 1DsII.

Will, take photos of each step!

Asher

Asher & Nill:

This discussion almost feels like "Back to the Future" for me. Does anybody remember the EOS-DCS series of digital SLRs from 1995? There was the 6 megapixel EOS-DCS 1 at approximately $28,000; the 1.3 megapixel EOS-DCS 3 at approximately $16,000; and the 1.5 megapixel EOS-DCS 5 at approximately $10,000. Other than the outlandish prices and the lack of an LCD screen, one thing all these cameras had in common was a full-frame 35mm viewfinder with frame markings that varied in size depending on the image sensor involved.

With this design, it was easy to anticipate when a moving subject would enter the active frame. But even though the frame lines were relatively thick and opaque, the majority of our customers at the time relentlessly complained that it was too confusing for them. Many of them simply couldn't adjust to the concept, and ended up with compositions that didn't match what they thought they had captured. There were also complaints that the relatively low magnification of the active frame area made manual focusing difficult.

Canon listened, and the next models (EOS D2000 and Kodak DCS520/560) had masked focusing screens with higher viewfinder magnification, which made them look similar to conventional 35mm SLRs. Everyone else followed suit (e.g., Nikon, etc.) and the rest is history.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall
Director/Media & Customer Relationship
Camera Marketing Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Seeming as everyone is in the mood for pulling their cameras apart, why not get an old 1D. If you could remove the AA filter and capture in RAW so that it would only be a B&W camera you would get heaps of resolution out of it. You could also try your masking idea and you would have a reallly really nice B&W camera with good resolution. Wanna give it a try Nill? a 1D is a cheaper experiement than a 1DII

Chuck is the viewfinder magnification any different in the 1D and 1Ds?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

1D vs 1Ds

Per DPR.

1D



1Ds



MKII same principle.

So aside from the placement of the info displays, it does appear to be a simple matter of masking. Ideally in the new camera this could be configurable via CF, either as a mask or as a rangefinder-style frame overlay.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

HI Daniel,

If you could remove the AA filter

Click to expand...

Any idea how? I s'pose I could google, but is it a mechanical, or a chemical process, and I guess it varies from camera to camera. (thinking maybe along the lines of modding a P&S)

I'm not sure, but I think if the camera is altered, the manufacturer's repair agents would not work on it, ever.
As I said, I'm not sure, but I suspect if you took out the aa fliter, and maybe a year or so later, completely unrelated, the shutter failed, they may be unwilling to touch the camera. Hence, any mods makes it a disposable camera. But I'm just guessing.

Best wishes,

Ray